I just started hanging out on the Ubuntu server forums and have noticed a trend I am really dissapointed in. I spent several hours last night trying to convince people on the SERVER forum why they shoud not load a GUI on their server. It was an excercise in futility to say the least. You would think since it was the SERVER forum, at least the experienced users would agree with me but that wasn't the case with most of them. I know this is a symptom of Micro$oft taking over more and more of the server market.

It's refreshing to come here and still see people that know what they are doing and that want to do things the correct way. once they port VMware to BSD, I'm outta the linux space for good. Sadly, I am seeing the dumbing down of Linux as it becomes more popular on the desktop. What do you guys think?

I wanted to see it gain popularity. Now I'm not too sure. I still use linux under my FBSD virtual machines, but it was very hard to find a distro that didn't come with 200 things installed that I had to remove first to get a minimal installation.

To me it's a shame to see any OSS community being dumbed down to the level of the Micro$haft masses.

I wanted to see it gain popularity. Now I'm not too sure. I still use linux under my FBSD virtual machines, but it was very hard to find a distro that didn't come with 200 things installed that I had to remove first to get a minimal installation.

-Tim

Have you tried Slackware, gentoo?

Well, not try to be blunt but most of linux users nowadays are migrants from Windoze. They are not knowledgeable, not educated, GUI oriented and seems not to get used to the "traditional" linux environment: linux is treated with dignity.

But there are still some guys who are exceptional.

__________________
The power of plain text? It can control an entire OS

Well, not try to be blunt but most of linux users nowadays are migrants from Windoze. They are not knowledgeable, not educated, GUI oriented and seems not to get used to the "traditional" linux environment: linux is treated with dignity.

But there are still some guys who are exceptional.

No, to be honest I have not tried either. Gentoo always seemed like too much work to compile everyting but I guess that is what I do with ports in FBSD anyway.

I have always heard that slack was way behind everytihng as far as being up to date. Maybe I should look again. I only use Linux on my VMware boxes because they haven't done a stable BSD port yet.

The "-current" packages on Debian are available for "sid". Ubuntu is based on "sid" but stops updating packages when the release number changes.
There are a couple of Debian-sid based distros (kanotix, sidux, ...).
The package list for Debian-sid must be the largest available, with latest versions.
As -current, -sid is the moving target which can stop working anytime, then be OK again a couple of minutes later with the next upgrade.

Slackware.
Have to check repositories (non of which are official) such as
linuxpackages.net (with a nice forum), or -my preferred- the Italian user group slacky.eu
Plus, there are about 50 distros based on Slackware, some with their own package list and package installation system.
Since I use slacky.eu I stopped complaining about packages to be old.

But back to the bigger picture, I just don't like the Linux kernel in general :\ IMHO (and I'm by no means an expert) it's becoming bloated and it was always weird. I've only ever put together a couple of them (I was fortunate enough to come across FreeBSD early in my Linux days ) and it was thoroughly unpleasant for me.

Actually, the sysinstall worked better for me when I was a "noob" than GUI installers.

FreeBSD was the first non-windows OS I tried, I got the installation right in one go, then it dropped me in a command prompt, I didn't manage to get X started so I decided a more "noob-friendly" might be a good idea, I decided on Mandrake Linux (Based on Red Hat, now Mandriva), It took me 3 or 4 times to get the installation right with the spiffy GUI...

The point is: There are more important things in an installation program than a spiffy GUI.

__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things.

The only thing I have GUI running on (at home) is my MacBook and an installation of Solaris 10 in VMWare Fusion on said MacBook. Oh and I do have XP Pro in VMWare also. For those pesky "Windows-only" things I run in to.

At work, I gotta deal with Windows Server 2000-2003 all the time. I jump at the chance to work on UNIX problems as they are generally easier (for me anyways). Maybe it's the quality of users. (Windows user: "I can't access the files I need to access. But I could last week. Fix it!" UNIX user: "I can't access this file as somehow I don't exist in sudoers anymore. Could you please add me real quick?"). Don't even get me started on network problems...

__________________
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by fleeing the scene of the accident!

I can only paste you my words from bsdforums.org about Linux, my response to tux08902 statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tux08902

To get one thing straight, Linux isn't a mess. It seems like a mess to the BSD folks because of its different development ideology.

Of course LINUX IS A MESS and a BIG ONE, let me tell you why.

1. kernel + kernel config.
every driver for every device has to be selected to be compiled, the are no such things like ADD ATA support to add chipsets that support ATA no way, you have to add evry single driver that you need, and even if you do you have no guarantee that it will wirk, a live example: Intel 945P chipset support, you add ATA support, 945P support, DMA support, Legacy support (just for sure), GENERIC support (wow, not in LEGACY? ok), HDD ATA support (thought that I already selected ATA...), CDROM ATA support (yay another one, gimme more) ... and after recompile and reboot you notice that DMA does not work, why? because you added GENERIC ATA (but wtf, itf just GENERIC support, why it breaks something) well nobody knows that but it does, PURE MESS, and that is just one example and I do not have all day to write all of them here. Kernel documentation, or I should rather say NONE of such thing.

2. sound architecture.
ALSA, a pure mess about sound, messes and fscked up API with some workarouns for mixing, with some workaround to add support for OSS while its still not working right and you have only ONE OSS channel, every experienced user know what that means,, why not add FreeBSD like OSS support with live in kernel sound mixing and do it the RIGHT WAY since 4FRONT opened OSS4 drivers and its fully open source now, even on Linux favorite GPL2 licence.

3. useless dirs /opt /srv /sys
what to fsck are they for? not telling about mandatory mounted /proc because almost nothing will work without it, ok, so we have /proc so what the fsck is /sys for just for fun?
/opt mhmm we already have /usr/local or even every custom dir for every other package management like /usr/pkg or /usr/openpkg or /usr/whatever, but no lets create something new totally uncompatible like /opt it seems fun.

I do not have time to write all these things all day, but there are a lot more things like that in Linux and LINUX IS PURE MESS unfortunely.

I recently saw a Linux distro can can be little painless then all others:

Draco Linux

What is so great about it? Well, its still all that fscking mess and sh!t in the kernel, but it uses pkgsrc.org as package management and OSS for sound, no ALSA or PulseSh!it anymore.

__________________religions, worst damnation of mankind"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus TorvaldsLinux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.vermaden's:linksresourcesdeviantartspreadbsd

I just started hanging out on the Ubuntu server forums and have noticed a trend I am really dissapointed in. I spent several hours last night trying to convince people on the SERVER forum why they shoud not load a GUI on their server. It was an excercise in futility to say the least. You would think since it was the SERVER forum, at least the experienced users would agree with me but that wasn't the case with most of them. I know this is a symptom of Micro$oft taking over more and more of the server market.

It's refreshing to come here and still see people that know what they are doing and that want to do things the correct way. once they port VMware to BSD, I'm outta the linux space for good. Sadly, I am seeing the dumbing down of Linux as it becomes more popular on the desktop. What do you guys think?

-Tim

I think that you may have picked one of the worst Linux distro to argue about not using GUI on servers. Ubuntu is considered to be one the most user friendly Linux distro out there because of the very reason of their GUI. So its like telling the PC-BSD community not to use GUI. That means that Ubuntu is mainly used for desktop computers. Now, if you want to talk about servers in the Linux community, you should look into CentOS (it received the award for best Linux server distro), Red Hat, and Debian just name a few.

Ubuntu has done a great job, and so has RedHat, about getting both hardware and software vendors to think about opensource.

The more they do, the easier it becomes for the BSD users as well. Ubuntu forums show an amazing patience with newcomers, which they should, as their stated number one bug is that MS is on more machines. As ambassadors for Open Source, they're doing an excellent job. Not perfect of course--when you bring a Live CD to someone and it won't boot--but by their numbers alone, they're making it easier for everyone else.

I'm not sure why RH, being a server based O/S spends so much time and effort on their GUIs. I haven't gotten into that argument with the developers yet, I get in enough about the lack of good documentation. Is it a mess? It's different. Some of it sure is, but the same statement could be made about any O/S.

Personally, I think that sniping at Linux does nothing for anyone save Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Divide and conquer and all that.

Debian's packages will always be behind the times (as will, for example, CentOS.) Their main aim is stability. I believe the Debian (vs. Ubuntu) server edition doesn't have a GUI installed by default. With CentOS and RH, you can certainly choose to not install it. I'm not sure why RH is, as a server O/S, so gnome centric, but mess or not, Linux is the one that gets support from say, VMware, Flash and other things that many of us want and use. We can thank Linux for it.

As for the difference in communities--we're much smaller, and it's much easier to have an effect. Yet, I do feel that in my participation on the fedora-testing list, I've had a small effect in gettng some surprising, poorly documented and mentioned changes, documented. The Ubuntu folks, who probably have to do what will please most of the probably over a million users, are going to be less likely to listen than are the BSD folks, who have far fewer users to please, and, generally speaking a less diverse group.

By less diverse, I mean the majority of BSD users are more sysadmin types. While some of the Linux users are simply trying to escape Windows or Apple. Of course, it's very trendy to say Linux is for those who hate Windows, BSD for those who love Unix, but it's simply a saying with little or no substance--probably BSD is becoming the place for those who hate Linux.

I bet that 70 percent of more of the forum members use flash. Thank Linux.

i am sure there are a lot of mature, intelligent and knowledgeable linux users.
but one doesn't hear them very often because linux has a tendency to attract noobs, zealots and mindless cult followers who make the most noise.

Every community has it's newbies, the problem I see is what is done with them. I remember once reading something that directed me to THIS page; which comes to mind now.

I don't have a problem with newbies, I deal with them regularly and stupid (snip)s as well. I do however have a problem with ignorance.

I would rather live with 10,000 newbies who don't know squat but will learn and grow as time goes, rather then 1,000 that don't know squat, don't want to know squat, and will probably never give a squat as long as things work without having to use any of the dying gray matter approximately 3ft about their asses.

Ubuntu is focused towards those new to Linux. PC-BSD, I at least consider it for those 'not used to computers'. OpenBSD, well at least if you know a fair bit about using Unix is pretty darn easy to use.

The real question is 10 years later, who has a computer problem and shouts "JUST F'ING WORK" and who sits down and tries to figure out WHY it doesn't work and HOW to fix it.

I respect effort almost as much as competence.

I've used computers since I was about 4 years old, playing games on MS-DOS 2 before I could even read, let along understand how to use the command prompt.

I was learning C++ when I stumbled onto the UNIX and Internet Fundamentals HOWTO. When I went in search of a Unix like OS about two years ago, I wanted to learn the system because of the things I read in that doc.

I found both Linux and the BSDs, after a _lot_ of research I got to feeling that the BSDs would be much more to my taste then the "Linux Distro Thing". And FreeBSD looked like it was right up my ally all the way down to the source code.

I used Knoppix Linux to see what hardware support might be like but my first installations were of FreeBSD 6.0-Release and PC-BSD 1.0RC1.

By Micro$oft's standards, I probably exceeded 'Power User' a couple of weeks after my family made the move from WebTV to an old Pentium I machine running Windows 98 around 2000/2001.

But when I booted off a Knoppix Live CD, I had not TOUCHED a command line of any sort in over a decade, even then never learned to use it. Five minutes into using konsole and a couple shells, I fell in love even though I didn't know a single thing about it.

One of my superiors at the time at a website I'm involved with, he told me to give up on figuring this stuff out but being the pig headed guy I am, I kept moving forward.

I began using the system with no prior knowledge what so ever of Unix, my only friend was the handbook and wikipedia because manual pages were still as good as written in Greek for the first month or two.

I wanted to learn more then I had to... Flash forward about two years: I can live in a command prompt, I have 3 or 4 more computers, use multiple operating systems, went from Dev-C++ to Vim and many more languages, I'm helping friends with networking issues I couldn't even comprehend before, windows is neglected to a game machine, and I'm filling webmaster shoes once held by the guy that told me to quit !

I don't expect everyone to want to learn every thing....

But I do expect, people to be willing to learn what they need to in order to do what they want/need to get done.

If you want to write a webpage but know nothing I'm fine with that. But if your not willing to *try* to figure out the basic idea of it, well don't expect me to answer with a smile ^_^

Beyond people like that, I've never had any problems with the Microsoft, Linux, or BSD communities.

/*
* forgive me if this is a bit OT but I wanted to reply.
*/

Quote:

Originally Posted by vermaden

3. useless dirs /opt /srv /sys
what to fsck are they for? not telling about mandatory mounted /proc because almost nothing will work without it, ok, so we have /proc so what the fsck is /sys for just for fun?
/opt mhmm we already have /usr/local or even every custom dir for every other package management like /usr/pkg or /usr/openpkg or /usr/whatever, but no lets create something new totally uncompatible like /opt it seems fun.

I somewhat dislike the /proc thing in so far as applications and documentations that assumes _every_ system has a Linuxes /proc structure. But at least Linux didn't invent the /proc idea, just most well known for it.

/opt is defined by the FHS, to me it is largely a waste... But it can have it's uses when desired and /opt is as good a name as any 3-letter combo.

/srv is also in the FHS, a good idea IMHO. My OpenBSD system for example is configured with a /srv/<service>/<service specific files>

for example, /srv/nfs/Videos -> good as place as any to store a big file share that changes so little, it could be RO ;-). Plus it puts in it a fairly obvious place.

/srv for services is no harder to figure out then /usr/share or /var/ either ^_^

(footnote: I've been 'stuck' into using NFS, which was my last choice).

I use both BSD and Linux (OpenBSD and NetBSD, plus Debian and Ubuntu). BSD has its strengths over Linux, and vice versa. They are similar enough that moving from one to the other isn't too awful.

I think it's far easier to set up a graphical Linux than BSD (although to be honest I've not tried FreeBSD yet). BSD does feel a little more efficient though.

I use Debian on my server and my router because it was the first open source OS I tried. Yes, I run them without a GUI. (I want the RAM and CPU cycles for routing and serving, not for graphics. Also, I almost always remotely maintain them, which is easier and faster with ssh than with a vnc connection.)

I think that there is a far larger number of so-called newbie Linux users simply because it's a more approachable OS for the average person. I'm not an IT person by profession, but I'm pretty computer savvy I think, and I still find BSD to be a little intimidating. I'm getting more comfortable with it, but I'm orders of magnitude more comfortable with Linux right now. That having been said, once I get that comfort level with BSD, I'll be tempted to use it for these applications instead, since it is so efficient-feeling.

Linux is to BSD what Windows is to Linux. You're going to get some less sophisticated users. Don't appraise the operating system by the users you see. Appraise it on what it can do for you.

I think that you may have picked one of the worst Linux distro to argue about not using GUI on servers. Ubuntu is considered to be one the most user friendly Linux distro out there because of the very reason of their GUI. So its like telling the PC-BSD community not to use GUI. That means that Ubuntu is mainly used for desktop computers. Now, if you want to talk about servers in the Linux community, you should look into CentOS (it received the award for best Linux server distro), Red Hat, and Debian just name a few.

Well I guess I didn't really explain my dilema too well, and I really wasn't asking a question anyway, just making an observation, but now that you guys replied maybe you can give me some feedback.

I work for a forune 100 company and run mostly AS/400s, but some other stuff as well, AIX, SUN, HP_UX and of course Windoze. I have been doing this for about 10 years now.

I also have a consulting buiness on the side that has grown to the point that I am seriously thinking of quitting my "real" job. I mostly do not work with any end users, and my main business is setting up and supporting web, e-mail, and database servers.

Recently, I have switched all my installations to virtualized servers because of the many advantages it provides. The problem is, that many of the mainstream vitualization vendors mostly support their software on Linux. I would much prefer to run it on BSD, but I need stability and I also need something mainstream so I can support it, so exotic software and hacks are out of the question, this stuff is mission critical.

Most of my installations are using CentOS, Ubuntu server, and SuSE as the host machines, and some form of *BSD as the guest production servers, mostly OpenBSD and FreeBSD. All have proved fairly stable but they seem to have a lot of extraneous garbage loaded that I have to remove to reduce the size of the install and cut down running services.

When Ubuntu came out with their server product, I waited a bit and after several releases I decided to try it as host OS. It seems to be a fine product and does not load too many extra services since it is built as a "server" OS. For those who don't know, it does not load a GUI of any kind with the default install which to me was perfect. The problem comes in when I get on the Ubuntu forums and go to their "server" section just to get a feel for the product and try to help people there trying to set up the OS. The first question out of their mouth is "How do I get to the GUI?". So some of us suggested you shouldn't be running a GUI on a a server hence the arguments that ensued. In some cases, when I try to help over there, my posts are just completely ignored as if they don't exist. I thought they migh be more appreciative of someone who actually had a bit of knowledge and could truly help users. Keep in mind I'm not being a snob or talking down to anyone, just making good logical suggestions. This is where I was just dissapointed in the whole attitude of the community.

Sorry this post is so long, and if anyone has any ideas as to a better environment than what I am using (Linux host, VMware, and BSD guest) please suggest it here in this thread. I should mention I am a VMware partner. I have played with the others but they seem less enterprise ready.

This community has helped me immensely in the past even though I didn't post much on bsdforums.org, but I WAS a regular reader. For that I thank you guys and I am grateful there is a place like this where you can get accurate information.